get_player_fantasy_log

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the game-by-game granularity, the per-player scope, and the behavior of the last_n parameter. It lacks details like error handling or data source caveats, but for a read-only data retrieval tool, this is sufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a concise front-loaded summary, illustrative example, and clear Args section. The example paragraph, while slightly verbose, effectively reinforces the tool's value, so the length is justified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately focuses on purpose, usage context, and parameter semantics. It covers the essential decision-making context (season averages hide role changes) and parameter details. It falls slightly short of a 5 by not mentioning potential edge cases like invalid player codes or season formats.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: person_code is the canonical ID from search_players, season uses a format example, and last_n describes both the recent-N behavior and the special case of 0. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns game-by-game fantasy points for a single player, explicitly distinguished from season averages and sibling tools like get_player_stats. The phrase 'for judging form and reliability' further clarifies the use case, making the purpose specific and actionable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides strong contextual guidance by contrasting with season averages, implying when this tool is needed over aggregate stats. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, which would justify a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.